You have picked up an important distinction - King of Scots refers to the people; King of England refers to the territory. That in itself is a good indicator of the deep difference between the Scots and the English - much more egalitarian and democratic. Goes back to the Declaration of Arbroath and the notion that the monarch ruled with the consent of his people as their champion, and if he didn't, they would replace him .

I wonder if Alis really meant King of Scotland, given that the only Scottish monarch who wasn't called King/Queen of Scotland was Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Queen's full title is - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. - so no separate mention of Scotland (Wales became an annexed territory of the English crown in the 13th century). Of course that leads to another great bone of contention, which, strictly speaking, has a valid basis - namely, that the Queen is not Elizabeth II of Scotland since her ancestral namesake was Queen Elizabeth I of England - something that the Scots Nats made their feelings plain about when our present Queen ascended the throne, going around blowing up post-boxes with EIIR on them and defacing the royal cypher wherever they could.

By the late 11th century at the very latest, Scottish kings were using the term rex Scottorum, or King of Scots, to refer to themselves in Latin. The title of King of Scots fell out of use in 1707 when the Kingdom of Scotland merged with the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Hpwever. at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Lord Steel as the Presiding Officer, referred to Elizabeth II as "not only the Queen of the United Kingdom but seated as you are among us in the historic and constitutionally correct manner as Queen of Scots. " Since that time the Queen has assumed the title of Queen of Scots when in Scotland. It may not be in her list of official titles but it is accepted as her title in Scotland and Lizzie doesn't seem to object!!

Thanks Alis. I didn't recollect that. Probably the reason the Queen is quite happy with it is because she's half-Scottish and is known to love this country. Why else would she spend 2/3 months a year in Balmoral? Incidentally, although HM has said that she will go along with the wishes of the Scottish people, should they opt for independence (I suppose she couldn't very well say anything else), it's for this reason that I think it would be a huge snub if an independent Scotland ditched the monarchy, although I understand Alex Salmond has said that he won't.

I wonder if Alis really meant King of Scotland, given that the only Scottish monarch who wasn't called King/Queen of Scotland was Mary, Queen of Scots,

I'm sure Robert Bruce was styled King of Scots, I thought it was the general style, although it may have been encouraged by the English Monarch who saw the Scots kings as their feudal vassals, ie they still claimed dominion over the territory.

I'm sure Robert Bruce was styled King of Scots, I thought it was the general style, although it may have been encouraged by the English Monarch who saw the Scots kings as their feudal vassals, ie they still claimed dominion over the territory.

Here's an interesting discovery I've just made, although I can't vouch for the truth of it, but it seems Bruce was styled King of Scotland before he won independence for Scotland. After that he was known as King of Scots.

He was styled 'King of Scotland' by the English not by the Scots. By the late 11th century Scottish kings were using the term 'Rex Scottorum' or King of Scots.

(Not my words, by the way, but my daughter's who has a PhD in Scottish History!)

Thanks for the further info. For the benefit of everyone else, Bruce was crowned King of Scots at Scone Abbey on 27 March 1306. Time I learnt more about early Scottish history since most of what I know is from the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots onwards.

Of course that leads to another great bone of contention, which, strictly speaking, has a valid basis - namely, that the Queen is not Elizabeth II of Scotland since her ancestral namesake was Queen Elizabeth I of England - something that the Scots Nats made their feelings plain about when our present Queen ascended the throne, going around blowing up post-boxes with EIIR on them and defacing the royal cypher wherever they could.

I'm told that your question, Aileen, was asked and answered in the 1950's. A Scottish nationalist called John McCormick sued the crown claiming that the queen had no right to call herself Elizabeth II in Scotland. The judge held that the styles of the monarch are a royal prerogative. That is, she can decide to call herself whatever she likes.

The convention, though, is that the monarch takes whichever numeral is higher in either the English or Scottish succession - as Winston Churchill said when he was asked this question in the Commons on the ascent of Elizabeth II:

'If, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he would be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession. They would be Robert IV or James VIII respectively.'

I wasn't saying that I agreed with Mackem, merely thanking him for clarifying a situation I already knew existed, i.e. that companies outside Scotland are becoming very reluctant to expand their businesses to Scotland because of the uncertainty created by the proposed referendum - and that's just their reaction to the referendum, not independence, which is only likely to cause even more uncertainty. If it did happen it would take probably at least a generation before the consequences of independence, whether for good or for ill, could be truly established.

Yes, the Highland Clearances were an atrocity, but they bear no relation to what is going on in the UK today simply because such a thing would never have been allowed to happen. Why can't us Scots stop raking up our grievances over and over again and start focussing instead on all the great things that Scotland is famous for - and if you care to think about it, there are plenty. For a start, what about all the inventions and medical discoveries that have been made by Scots over the last 200 years? What about our whisky trade and the fact that Scots are famous the world over for their friendliness and hospitality? What about the fact that the Bank of England was founded by a Scot (William Paterson) and that Adam Smith became one of the greatest economists and philosophers the UK has ever known?

Also my mind is not firmly made up. I could still change my opinions if I could hear a few sensible and practical cases as to why Scotland should become independent, and what the outcome of that independence is expected to be. Unfortunately now that Salmond and the SNP seem to have shrouded themselves in a cloak of secrecy on certain aspects of independence, this seems unlikely at the moment.

I have no love for the current Tory/LibDem government, nor had I any for the previous Labour one, for their mismanagement of Britain's financial affairs because they chose, and still choose, to turn a blind eye to what greedy bankers get up to. My question is - could Scotland on its own dig itself out of recession, and from what I've heard and read, it seems very unlikely. Salmond had little credibility left when he pointed out the similarities between what an independent Scotland could achieve financially and economically with both Iceland and Ireland just before both these countries sank - spectacularly, in the case of Iceland.

True, England wasn't mentioned specifically, but the implication was still there. I've listened to these sort of rants for decades and this one is pretty similar to what was being spouted 40/50 years ago, the only difference being that, had Salmond and the SNP been in government then, Scotland could well have become independent because their was much more nationalistic feeling in this country then that there is now. Had a independence referendum been held then I would probably have voted in favour.

I'm well aware of the England=Britain thing, and it does irk me, but for the moment I'm prepared to live with it rather than see the Union broken.

When you say you know a situation exists, do you just mean that you heard Osborne and a couple of his CBI mates make this unprovable accusation or do you personally have credible information from another source?

And are you forgetting or did you not know that soon after that accusation, that a Scottish independence referendum was putting off would be investors, was dropped in by Osborne while on some whistle stop visit to Scotland, the energy company, that one of these put-up men was chairman of went bust, so he, at least, was hardly speaking from a position of vaunted authority. Also 3 different international companies invested in Scotland that very month, one of whose, chairman, commented that the very notion of a future referendum or even independence had simply not been a factor in their decision to start manufacturing turbines here?

You bemoan the negativity of Scottish people, when it comes to looking at our relationship with England, fair enough, there's alot of water under the bridge, some stuff still rankles but let's leave that alone, just now. But I simply must bemoan your negativity with regards to modern Scotland. You are recounting a list of achievements that we can be proud of and yet you also think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet. You are scared that we will be abandoned by global businesses, although you admit that the recent different governments of Britain have been poor.

I hope you think that I am being positive when I say that Scotland has nothing to be afraid of.

Funnily enough I was listening last week to a business man from Iceland describing how they are pulling themselves together, economically, since the banking crisis -( not that it is over). During the interview it came to light that their economy is based on selling fish, tourism and the extraction of aluminium ore. You want to hear business reasons as to why Scotland will be okay when independent, then I can assure you, there are alot more than Iceland would have and yet there it is, making no attempt to cling to a bigger state because it it scared. No, instead they have relationships with neighbouring countries, the world around them, just like we would/will.

Fishing, forestry, manufacturing, tourism, whisky, oil, water, green energy technology, to name the first things that come to mind, collectively make a very good reason why we could expect a good future as an independent nation. Especially when you ally that with the good feeling we command around the world, the respect many of our people are held in across all important fields of human endeavour, and across history.

What do we have to be negative about, if we become independent? Nothing.

I honestly believe we are very lucky to be living in Scotland at this time. While the rest of this poor, benighted isle can only choose between New Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem, we have the opportunity to choose a party that can break out of this woeful, electoral cycle.

Excuse me, for tub thumping, this subject excites me just as much as Andys' tennis matches.

I'm told that your question, Aileen, was asked and answered in the 1950's. A Scottish nationalist called John McCormick sued the crown claiming that the queen had no right to call herself Elizabeth II in Scotland. The judge held that the styles of the monarch are a royal prerogative. That is, she can decide to call herself whatever she likes.

The convention, though, is that the monarch takes whichever numeral is higher in either the English or Scottish succession - as Winston Churchill said when he was asked this question in the Commons on the ascent of Elizabeth II:

'If, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he would be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession. They would be Robert IV or James VIII respectively.'

I didn't know that - amazing what you learn when you ask!!

When I was at school James VI of Scotland was always referred to as James I and VI when he became king of England.

I'm told that your question, Aileen, was asked and answered in the 1950's. A Scottish nationalist called John McCormick sued the crown claiming that the queen had no right to call herself Elizabeth II in Scotland. The judge held that the styles of the monarch are a royal prerogative. That is, she can decide to call herself whatever she likes.

The convention, though, is that the monarch takes whichever numeral is higher in either the English or Scottish succession - as Winston Churchill said when he was asked this question in the Commons on the ascent of Elizabeth II:

'If, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he would be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession. They would be Robert IV or James VIII respectively.'

I didn't know that - amazing what you learn when you ask!!

But that can't be right - James VI of Scotland became James I of England - i suppose the sphists will claim thats because it predated the Union of the parliaments, but I'd bet my pension that William will not be numbered with either William the Lion of Scotland, or Prince William of Orange!!

I'm told that your question, Aileen, was asked and answered in the 1950's. A Scottish nationalist called John McCormick sued the crown claiming that the queen had no right to call herself Elizabeth II in Scotland. The judge held that the styles of the monarch are a royal prerogative. That is, she can decide to call herself whatever she likes.

The convention, though, is that the monarch takes whichever numeral is higher in either the English or Scottish succession - as Winston Churchill said when he was asked this question in the Commons on the ascent of Elizabeth II:

'If, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he would be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession. They would be Robert IV or James VIII respectively.'

I didn't know that - amazing what you learn when you ask!!

I didn't know any of that either, so thank you. Although I vaguely remember McCormick and his court action I was probably too young to be all that interested. I do however remember the Scots Nats blowing up post-boxes, etc. I even have a recollection of the fuss created when a group of 4 Scottish students managed to remove the Stone of Scone from Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day, 1950, breaking it into two pieces in the process.

Incidentally it was McCormick who was responsible for merging the National Party of Scotland (NPS) and the Scottish Party in 1934 to form the Scottish National Party. He fell out of love with the SNP in the early 1940s because he didn't like their idea of independence, but was instead a great advocate of Home Rule (or devolution), forming his own party, the Scottish Covenant Association, which for many years was a thorn in the flesh to the SNP because it attracted many more members than they did and even caused the defection of large numbers of their members.

But that can't be right - James VI of Scotland became James I of England - i suppose the sphists will claim thats because it predated the Union of the parliaments, but I'd bet my pension that William will not be numbered with either William the Lion of Scotland, or Prince William of Orange!!

If reports are to be believed, Princes Charles doesn't want to be styled King Charles III, but instead wishes to call himself George VII. That is if he ever does succeed to the throne!

When you say you know a situation exists, do you just mean that you heard Osborne and a couple of his CBI mates make this unprovable accusation or do you personally have credible information from another source?

And are you forgetting or did you not know that soon after that accusation, that a Scottish independence referendum was putting off would be investors, was dropped in by Osborne while on some whistle stop visit to Scotland, the energy company, that one of these put-up men was chairman of went bust, so he, at least, was hardly speaking from a position of vaunted authority. Also 3 different international companies invested in Scotland that very month, one of whose, chairman, commented that the very notion of a future referendum or even independence had simply not been a factor in their decision to start manufacturing turbines here?

You bemoan the negativity of Scottish people, when it comes to looking at our relationship with England, fair enough, there's alot of water under the bridge, some stuff still rankles but let's leave that alone, just now. But I simply must bemoan your negativity with regards to modern Scotland. You are recounting a list of achievements that we can be proud of and yet you also think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet. You are scared that we will be abandoned by global businesses, although you admit that the recent different governments of Britain have been poor.

I hope you think that I am being positive when I say that Scotland has nothing to be afraid of.

Funnily enough I was listening last week to a business man from Iceland describing how they are pulling themselves together, economically, since the banking crisis -( not that it is over). During the interview it came to light that their economy is based on selling fish, tourism and the extraction of aluminium ore. You want to hear business reasons as to why Scotland will be okay when independent, then I can assure you, there are alot more than Iceland would have and yet there it is, making no attempt to cling to a bigger state because it it scared. No, instead they have relationships with neighbouring countries, the world around them, just like we would/will.

Fishing, forestry, manufacturing, tourism, whisky, oil, water, green energy technology, to name the first things that come to mind, collectively make a very good reason why we could expect a good future as an independent nation. Especially when you ally that with the good feeling we command around the world, the respect many of our people are held in across all important fields of human endeavour, and across history.

What do we have to be negative about, if we become independent? Nothing.

I honestly believe we are very lucky to be living in Scotland at this time. While the rest of this poor, benighted isle can only choose between New Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem, we have the opportunity to choose a party that can break out of this woeful, electoral cycle.

Excuse me, for tub thumping, this subject excites me just as much as Andys' tennis matches.

I'll excuse your tub thumping Igriev and I like the comparison with Andy's matches. If we could only work towards gaining enough confidence in ourselves, as Andy did in his chosen sport, what could we achieve? I remember the elation when we voted for devolution and how proud I felt. And to go on and reach independence would be my dream.

When you say you know a situation exists, do you just mean that you heard Osborne and a couple of his CBI mates make this unprovable accusation or do you personally have credible information from another source?

And are you forgetting or did you not know that soon after that accusation, that a Scottish independence referendum was putting off would be investors, was dropped in by Osborne while on some whistle stop visit to Scotland, the energy company, that one of these put-up men was chairman of went bust, so he, at least, was hardly speaking from a position of vaunted authority. Also 3 different international companies invested in Scotland that very month, one of whose, chairman, commented that the very notion of a future referendum or even independence had simply not been a factor in their decision to start manufacturing turbines here?

You bemoan the negativity of Scottish people, when it comes to looking at our relationship with England, fair enough, there's alot of water under the bridge, some stuff still rankles but let's leave that alone, just now. But I simply must bemoan your negativity with regards to modern Scotland. You are recounting a list of achievements that we can be proud of and yet you also think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet. You are scared that we will be abandoned by global businesses, although you admit that the recent different governments of Britain have been poor.

I hope you think that I am being positive when I say that Scotland has nothing to be afraid of.

Funnily enough I was listening last week to a business man from Iceland describing how they are pulling themselves together, economically, since the banking crisis -( not that it is over). During the interview it came to light that their economy is based on selling fish, tourism and the extraction of aluminium ore. You want to hear business reasons as to why Scotland will be okay when independent, then I can assure you, there are alot more than Iceland would have and yet there it is, making no attempt to cling to a bigger state because it it scared. No, instead they have relationships with neighbouring countries, the world around them, just like we would/will.

Fishing, forestry, manufacturing, tourism, whisky, oil, water, green energy technology, to name the first things that come to mind, collectively make a very good reason why we could expect a good future as an independent nation. Especially when you ally that with the good feeling we command around the world, the respect many of our people are held in across all important fields of human endeavour, and across history.

What do we have to be negative about, if we become independent? Nothing.

I honestly believe we are very lucky to be living in Scotland at this time. While the rest of this poor, benighted isle can only choose between New Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem, we have the opportunity to choose a party that can break out of this woeful, electoral cycle.

Excuse me, for tub thumping, this subject excites me just as much as Andys' tennis matches.

Igriev, whilst I read your comments with interest, I don't share your great enthusiasm for the subject, nor do I really know enough to argue with you. However you've been about the first person to actually put forward a sensible reason for independence and its possible success. If I could hear a few more like you then I might just be persuaded to change my mind, but it's a big might. As for my perceived negativity - maybe that arises out of natural cautiousness because I'm a cautious person, perhaps even more so now because I suspect I've been on this earth considerably longer than you have.

Of course Scotland is lucky to have the SNP as an alternative to the other dead ducks, but I don't see how that necessarily means we need to be independent. I support the SNP because of their other policies and what they have done for Scotland so far, and am very proud that they have led the field in some areas. For example, their recent idea to have zero tolerance for drink-driving in under 25s is an excellent one and one which I hope finally gets the approval of the other parties. I'd be quite happy for Holyrood to have more devolved powers, although just exactly what fiscal autonomy would mean is still unclear. If there's a Devo Max option on that ballot paper then that's the one that, for the moment at least, I intend putting my cross beside.